On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:34:05 -0800 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Thanks, I'll add Dan and Rafael's tested-bys to the patches (they're > > already in my for-linus tree). ÂUnless Linus has a problem with them > > I'll send them over to him this weekend or Monday. > > See my other email I just sent out. > > I really am not going to take some totally new experimental and hacky > major PCI resource management thing this late in the -rc game. No way, > no how. > > If the top-down allocator is causing regressions that cannot be fixed > by _simple_ patches, we're simply going to have to undo it. What's the > advantage of top-down? None. Not if we then need all this crap, which > we could as easily do on top of the bottom-up one WITHOUT any > regressions. > > Why isn't anybody else questioning the whole basic premise here? Questioning the whole premise is fine, but so far we've gone in (or at least think we're going in) a consistent direction: behave like Windows on platforms designed for Windows to avoid bugs that Windows doesn't hit and enable all the same devices Windows allows. But yes, I really don't like the nx6325 patch either; there's obviously something we're still missing that's preventing us from doing the right thing on that platform. Quirking it isn't a good long term answer. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
